W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > w3c-dist-auth@w3.org > October to December 2003

RE: Bind issues

From: Lisa Dusseault <lisa@xythos.com>
Date: Mon, 1 Dec 2003 10:21:19 -0800
To: "'Julian Reschke'" <julian.reschke@gmx.de>, <w3c-dist-auth@w3.org>
Message-ID: <003e01c3b837$ead7f740$75c990c6@lisalap>



> Lisa,
> 
> you haven't replied to my mail dated Nov 18
> (<http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-dist-auth/2003OctDec
> /0207.html>).

Hi Julian,  many of us just got back from a 4-day weekend due
to American Thanksgiving.  I haven't had time to reread the bind
draft yet as you suggested.

> As far as I can tell among the three questions you raised,
> 
> - one is closed (by the introduction of REBIND in addition to MOVE),
> 
> - one is still open (bind loop error marshalling), proposal 
> for resolution
> is at
> <http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-dist-auth/2003OctDec/0200.html>

> - one will be closed by updating GULP
> (<http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-dist-auth/2003JanMar/0367.html>)
> to clarify when a lock token counts as "submitted".

I don't think that adding any text to RFC2518bis will fix the problem in the

bind draft.  It's not clear RFC2518bis will finish soon, or if it does, 
what status it will have, or how bindings will depend on it.  Unless the
bindings draft waits on RFC2518bis to finish, it needs to stand on its
own in this respect.

(As I've already said, I think all the language from GULP *is* in 
RFC2518bis.  I may have missed something and I'm happy to have it pointed
out, but due to the dependency issue, whether or not that's complete or
agreed upon may not be relevant to bindings status)

Lisa
Received on Monday, 1 December 2003 13:21:17 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Tuesday, 2 June 2009 18:44:05 GMT